JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. These four Petitions raise the issue of entitlement of Respondent to gratuity for services rendered by him with the Petitioners. There is no dispute to the position that Respondent is entitled to gratuity for services rendered with Petitioners. The dispute is about the exact amount of gratuity payable to him. He has rendered two tranches of service, under Terna Polytechnic and Terna Engineering College. The Controlling and Appellate Authorities under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Gratuity Act) have directed payment of two separate amounts of gratuity by Terna Polytechnic and Terna Engineering College. The grievance of the Petitioners is with regard to the quantification of gratuity of Respondent by taking into consideration the last pay drawn by him at the time of resignation on 21 July 2011 for determining his entitlement of gratuity in respect of services rendered by him in Terna Polytechnic during 17 September 1992 to 30 June 2004. It is the contention of Petitioners that the last pay drawn by Respondent in Terna Polytechnic as on 30 June 2004 is required to be taken into consideration for quantification of gratuity payable to him in respect of services with Terna Polytechnic. This is the broad challenge in the present Petitions.

3. For a better understanding of the exact dispute between parties, it would be necessary to give some factual background. Terna Public Charitable Trust owns and manages various Educational Institutions. It claims to have established two independent and distinct institutions namely Terna Polytechnic and Terna Engineering College at Navi Mumbai. According to the Petitioners the Educational Institutes are separate legal entities registered distinctly with the Education Department and having separate administration, financial control, manpower, and premises. That the two institutes impart education in different fields.

4. Respondent came to be engaged as lecturer in Terna Polytechnic on ad hoc basis with effect from 17 September 1992. He continued to work with Terna Polytechnic upto 30 June 2004. Immediately from 1 July 2004, he came to be appointed as Lecturer in Terna Engineering College on an ad hoc basis and continued to function till 21 July 2011. It appears that the services of the Respondent were approved by Mumbai University on 01 September 2009. Respondent tendered resignation from services of Terna Engineering College for better prospectus and joined another Education Institution with effect from 22 July 2011.

5. As Respondent was not paid gratuity in respect of services rendered by him with Terna Polytechnic and Terna Engineering College, he filed Application (PGA) No. 28 of 2012 before the Controlling Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-4th Labour Court, Thane. In his application, he impleaded both Terna Polytechnic and Terna Engineering College as Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The application was resisted by both the Colleges. By Judgment and Order dated 16 October 2015, the Controlling Authority allowed the application partly and held that the Respondent is entitled to a gratuity of Rs. 3,84,277/- in respect of the entire service rendered by him. It thereafter proceeded to bifurcate the amount of Rs. 3,84,277/- and directed Terna Engineering College to pay a gratuity of Rs. 1,41,613/- and Terna Polytechnic to pay a gratuity of Rs. 2,42,764/-.

6. Both the Colleges as well as Respondent got aggrieved by the Order dated 16 October 2015 passed by the Controlling Authority so far as the quantum of the gratuity was concerned. It was the contention of Terna Polytechnic that the services of Respondent were not approved by the Directorate of Technical Education and therefore no gratuity is payable to him. Alternatively, it was submitted that the last drawn salary of Respondent in Terna Polytec